first mate

Thanks Rollflick, I am trying to marry your revelations with the following assertions made by Cllr McAsh: "Over the summer discussion about a potential consultation began on here. I made it clear in September that the CPZ consultation was not all-or-nothing and that if it were supported in one section of the area but not in others then it could be implemented in just that section. - This winter the consultation launched, and the key question asked residents if they want a CPZ on their road. It was not an all-or-nothing referendum on whether to implement a CPZ across the whole area, it was a consultation to identify whether or not there are streets which want one. - In January I pledged on here, and with the support of the leader of the Council, Cllr Peter John, that there were three potential outcomes: full implementation across the consultation area, full rejection across the consultation area, or partial implementation in just a subsection of the consultation area where there is majority support. - In April the interim reports of the consultations were released, each with a recommendation from officers for how to proceed."

Rollflick, does this mean Cllr Livingstone is very likely to impose the fuller version of CPZ ( as proposed in the council report) despite Ward Cllr recommendations to make it smaller? If that is the case, wouldn't Ward Cllrs have known all along what Cllr Livingstone's legal obligations are and therefore the likely outcome? Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if the above is the case there has been misrepresentation on a grand scale.

Eastdulwich99 I believe these questions were asked. As others have said, the questionnaire was designed in such a way as to maximise opportunity for the Council to justify introduction of CPZ, if only on a few streets. In short, it was designed to make CPZ happen! James further flagged that contiguous streets were yet another way the council could broaden the CPZ, even streets with a clear majority against CPZ. The council desperately needed just a few streetsi favour to get CPZ started. Once underway it is very likely that parking displacement over time, together with all the Council's other endeavours to increase pressure on parking, will result in an eventual spread of CPZ- which is the plan.

There is a brief piece in SE22 magazine where Cllr Charlie Smith reports on the CPZ Consultation results and I quote: "The overall response showed the majority (69%) were against a parking zone." He also calls the 2244 responses received "a very high response rate of 37% which is a record for the Council."

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And therein lies the beauty of the council's very > cleverly worded and designed questionnaire....very > much designed to give it the mandate it wanted to > deploy CPZs. > > One wonders why, given the furore around the > proposals in the run-up to the consultation, why > they didn't ask whether people wanted a CPZ in > East Dulwich and whether people were worried about > the impact it might have on the local > area......hmmmmm....I wonder.... > > The reality is that a small number of streets > around the station will now get their desire for a > CPZ whilst everyone in the rest of the area lives > with the fallout. Rockets agreed, I think the majority are very clear about the council's carefully designed questionnaire and its slippery ways. Many of us recognised their long game years ago. I don't think anyone is fooled at all. What is shocking is that they will still be able to impose CPZ although it may take a little longer than they would wish- but they now have the small number of streets they need to get the CPZ domino effect kick-started and well on its way. What remains to be seen is if Cllr Livinstone listens to the recommendations of our Ward Cllrs in removing some of the streets from the CPZ zone? The cyncial side of me wonders if these proposed compromises are genuine or were always part of the grand plan? To quote another poster, the idea being to make us feel grateful we are only being punched in one eye rather than both.

But if you don't want CPZ in your own street why would you want it in another? Given the repeated cautions about parking displacement it seems more than likely that if you do not want it in your own street you will not want it anywhere in your area. You make a clever and accurate point about use of language but, to my mind, it doesn't really stack up if the intention is to dilute the notion that of those responding more are against CPZ than in favour?

If the poster does not use the word 'vote' isn't it 'fake news' to suggest it does and to keep repeating this?

Agreed!

There is plenty of existing legislation (criminal and civil) to enable human victims and police to take action in circumstances described- though police are often ignorant of the legislation. Taking action in regard to serious attacks on other dogs is more difficult. I agree that advocating an on lead policy for all dogs other than in tiny areas is not the way to go. The issue here is antisocial owners.

Thanks for that feedback Eileen and Pugwash. Does anyone know the track record of Cllr Livingstone following through on ward councillor recommendations for parking and CPZ related issues?

I'm sorry to say that I doubt you will have grounds for appeal, though others may know and advise you more positively. There has been a recent significant increase in parking warden activity in my area at least, presumably in preparation for the likely imposition of CPZ by the council. I am under the impression that parking across dropped kerbs is a no-no. If I am correct I would not expect any leeway from the council. They want your money after all!

Thanks James for your responses, You suggest that parking displacement caused by a CPZ for roads closest to the station could be mitigated by people choosing instead to stop using their cars in favour of public and other forms of transport. However, this seems unlikely if those closest to the station (including major bus route into town) have asked for CPZ so they can keep using their cars? It has already been noted that perhaps those choosing to live close to a station might expect a little more pressure on parking- we all know people commute. Nonetheless, it would seem that these residents have found a way to park, albeit wih difficulty, or they would not be current car owners and asking for CPZ? Many of us have long accepted that it will not always be possible to park in our own street, let alone outside our house. Finally, the general perception is that the council is placing as much pressure on parking as it lawfully can. One example is the contentious mass double yellow lines. Why not simply admit that one way or another, however long it takes, the current administration is set on mass CPZ?

I find the stated aim to treat all residents wishes 'equally' so disingenuous. It is quite clear that even a small number of streets with all day CPZ will cause parking displacement at some point, leading to more CPZ at some point. The Council and Councillors know this... it is simply a matter of how long achieving full CPZ takes them.

I wonder how much this consultation exercise has cost? There was a comment along the lines of costs of consultation to be absorbed by CPZ when up and running. So, yet another, albeit lesser, reason for council to ignore the majority and pursue CPZ, no matter what.

Take a look at Cllr James Cash' comments on his thread. He is making some sensible suggestions, in that it seems there may be room for tweaks. He notes that 4 of the streets in the Melbourne Grove CPZ proposal were overall anti CPZ and that perhaps these should be excluded and CPZ line drawn closer to the station. He argues the 4 currently inlcuded roads are not really used for station parking but more by shoppers. Excluding these would help shops and traders who fear impact of CPZ. I'd support this.

Louise wrote: According to the planning application, the new Superdrug store will also contain a ?The Perfume Shop? counter, which is absolutely brilliant news. Lots of quality fragrances, at knock down prices. If true, I hope this does not affect Rouiller White's perfume parlour. An independent will never compete with a chain on prices. That said, the hope is there is room for both.

Could this mean that objections must be qualified instead of being a straight 'no'? I'd be interested to know why Cllr Livingstone prefers the word 'outweigh' to 'majority'

Thank you for that post which describes the likely reality of CPZ. Have you noticed an increase in cycling by the way?

Do we actually know what proportion of parents within the ED area that drive their kids to school on a regular basis, or is the evidence largely anecdotal?

Very well put Penguin. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you believe that there should be absolutely no > measures to control car use in residential areas? > - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction, > ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid > and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to > either safety or air quality. However removing > parking spaces and hence potentially increasing > (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to > dangers. Just as an example. > > Road closures such as this simply displace traffic > to other roads, often thereby actually increasing > traffic of those roads and increasing pollution > and possibly decreasing road safety on those > roads. Fine for those living in the newly > 'protected' roads, not so for others. > > So my plea for all roads which are actually > passable to be used is all about spreading > discomfort which may actually decrease 'per > household' dangers and pollution. Of course you > can plot to make your household particularly safe > and pollution free, but only at the expense of > others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than > 'my gain'.

I agree with the way you qualify your examples of non-essential journeys with a 'might' because some of those very same journeys might also be essential for a proportion of the population.

I find the 'environment-saving' car park charges slightly at odds with Council moves to hire the park out for private events, which arguably damage sections of the park and wildlife. I also wonder about pollution measurements at those events? All those large vehicles. One also senses that those with needs that don't fit into the council and its supporters agenda are viewed as necessary collateral damage.

While some local parks are being hired out for private use Https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/31/londons-parks-accused-of-creeping-privatisation-of-public-spaces I wonder how the parks parking will be 'policed'? By phone ticket machines...? Will there be private wardens on patrol? The parks now have PSPOs in place. These could easily be extended to cover other areas that could also become revenue raising opportunities.

Given how difficult it is to get a Blue Badge I imagine this will leave numbers of people with mobility issues now having to pay for the privilege of using the park. People should not be hoodwinked into thinking that because Blue Badge holders are exempt that the needs of the infirm and disabled are covered.

Anyway, to get the thread back on track, residents have until September 30th to comment either in favour or against. For now, it does seem the case that this experiment is having a negative effect on traffic levels in East Dulwich, at least that is what some residents are reporting.